New York Subways at the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6)

        How vulnerable are NYC’s underwater subway tunnels to flooding?Ashley Fetters
New York City is full of peculiar phenomena—rickety fire escapes; 100-year-old subway tunnelsair conditioners propped perilously into window frames—that can strike fear into the heart of even the toughest city denizen. But should they? Every month, writer Ashley Fetters will be exploring—and debunking—these New York-specific fears, letting you know what you should actually worry about, and what anxieties you can simply let slip away.
The 25-minute subway commute from Crown Heights to the Financial District on the 2/3 line is, in my experience, a surprisingly peaceful start to the workday—save for one 3,100-foot stretch between the Clark Street and Wall Street stations, where for three minutes I sit wondering what the probability is that I will soon die a torturous, claustrophobic drowning death right here in this subway car.
The Clark Street Tunnel, opened in 1916, is one of approximately a dozen tunnels that escort MTA passengers from one borough to the next underwater—and just about all of them, with the exception of the 1989 addition of the 63rd Street F train tunnel, were constructed between 1900 and 1936.
Each day, thousands of New Yorkers venture across the East River and back again through these tubes buried deep in the riverbed, some of which are nearing or even past their 100th birthdays. Are they wrong to ponder their own mortality while picturing one of these watery catacombs suddenly springing a leak?
Mostly yes, they are, says Michael Horodniceanu, the former president of MTA Capital Construction and current principal of Urban Advisory Group. First, it’s important to remember that the subway tunnel is built under the riverbed, not just in the river—so what immediately surrounds the tunnel isn’t water but some 25 feet of soil. “There’s a lot of dirt on top of it,” Horodniceanu says. “It’s well into the bed of the bottom of the channel.”
And second, as Angus Kress Gillespie, author of Crossing Under the Hudson: The Story of the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, points out, New York’s underwater subway tunnels are designed to withstand some leaking. And withstand it they do: Pumps placed below the floor of the tunnel, he says, are always running, always diverting water seepage into the sewers. (Horodniceanu says the amount of water these pumps divert into the sewer system each day numbers in the thousands of gallons.)
Additionally, MTA crews routinely repair the grouting and caulking, and often inject a substance into the walls that creates a waterproof membrane outside the tunnel—which keeps water out of the tunnel and relieves any water pressure acting on its walls. New tunnels, Horodniceanu points out, are even built with an outside waterproofing membrane that works like an umbrella: Water goes around it, it falls to the sides, and then it gets channeled into a pumping station and pumped out.
Of course, the classic New York nightmare scenario isn’t just a cute little trickle finding its way in. The anxiety daydream usually involves something sinister, or seismic. The good news, however, is that while an earthquake or explosion would indeed be bad for many reasons, it likely wouldn’t result in the frantic flooding horror scene that plays out in some commuters’ imaginations.
The Montague Tube, which sustained severe damage during Hurricane Sandy.
MTA New York City Transit / Marc A. Hermann
Horodniceanu assures me that tunnels built more recently are “built to withstand a seismic event.” The older tunnels, however—like, um, the Clark Street Tunnel—“were not seismically retrofitted, let me put it that way,” Horodniceanu says. “But the way they were built is in such a way that I do not believe an earthquake would affect them.” They aren’t deep enough in the ground, anyway, he says, to be too intensely affected by a seismic event. (The MTA did not respond to a request for comment.)
One of the only real threats to tunnel infrastructure, Horodniceanu adds, is extreme weather. Hurricane Sandy, for example, caused flooding in the tunnels, which “created problems with the infrastructure.” He continues, “The tunnels have to be rebuilt as a result of saltwater corroding the infrastructure.”
Still, he points out, hurricanes don’t exactly happen with no warning. So while Hurricane Sandy did cause major trauma to the tunnels, train traffic could be stopped with ample time to keep passengers out of harm’s way. In 2012, Governor Andrew Cuomo directed all the MTA’s mass transit services to shut down at 7 p.m. the night before Hurricane Sandy was expected to hit New York City.
And Gillespie, for his part, doubts even an explosion would result in sudden, dangerous flooding. A subway tunnel is not a closed system, he points out; it’s like a pipe that’s open at both ends. “The force of a blast would go forwards and backwards out the exit,” he says.
So the subway-train version of that terrifying Holland Tunnel flood scene in Sylvester Stallone’s Daylight is … unrealistic, right?
“Yeah,” Gillespie laughs. “Yeah. It is.”
Got a weird New York anxiety that you want explored? E-mail, and we may include it in a future column.

Israel arrests 26 Palestinians outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

File photo
File photo

Israel arrests 26 Palestinians in West Bank raids

Senior Hamas member among detainees

Israeli army forces detained 26 Palestinians, including a senior Hamas member, in overnight raids in the occupied West Bank, according to local media on Monday.

The state news agency Wafa said most of the raids took place in the towns of Azzum and Surra, west of Qalqilya.

Among the detainees was senior Hamas member Khalid Abu al-Baha, who was arrested in the town of Beitunia, west of Ramallah, Wafa said.

The raids triggered clashes with angry Palestinian residents, with Israeli forces using tear gas canisters to disperse protesters, according to eyewitnesses.

The Israeli army frequently carries out wide-ranging arrest campaigns across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem on the pretext of searching for “wanted” Palestinians.

Palestinian NGOs estimated that there are around 4,500 Palestinian detainees in Israeli jails, with at least 500 held under the Israeli administrative detention policy without charge or trial.

Legitimacy of the Australian Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

Legitimacy issue of AUKUS-related nuke material transfer must not be dodged: Chinese envoy

Source: Xinhua

Editor: huaxia

China’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Vienna Wang Qun attends a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors in Vienna, Austria, March 7, 2022. Wang Qun said on Monday that the issue of the legitimacy of the nuclear weapon material transfer involved in AUKUS must not be dodged. Wang made the remarks after a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors decided by consensus to set up a formal agenda item on “Transfer of nuclear materials in the context of AUKUS and its safeguards in all aspects under the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) at China’s proposal. (Xinhua/Guo Chen)

VIENNA, March 7 (Xinhua) — China’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Vienna Wang Qun said on Monday that the issue of the legitimacy of the nuclear weapon material transfer involved in AUKUS must not be dodged.

Wang made the remarks after a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors decided by consensus to set up a formal agenda item on “Transfer of nuclear materials in the context of AUKUS and its safeguards in all aspects under the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) at China’s proposal.

In September last year, the United States, Britain and Australia announced the establishment of AUKUS, under which the United States and Britain will assist Australia in its acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.

The Chinese envoy said the inclusion of the AUKUS issue into the IAEA board meeting’s agenda, the second time since its meeting in November 2021, reflects the serious concerns of board members and the international community over the trilateral deal.

The move also shows that the matter has gone beyond the existing mandate of the IAEA’s secretariat and must be addressed through an intergovernmental process, he added.

Wang noted the core issue is whether AUKUS involves the illegal transfer of nuclear weapon materials.

The cooperation between Australia, a non-nuclear-weapon state, and the United States and Britain, both nuclear-weapon states, must be reviewed under the framework of the NPT to decide whether such collaboration violates the purpose of the NPT, Wang said, adding that the question must be clarified and cannot be dodged.

“If the AUKUS does involve the illegal transfer of nuclear weapon materials, the three countries must completely abolish relevant cooperation and put an immediate end to the acts that openly and directly violate the NPT,” he said. “Otherwise, the IAEA member states have the right and responsibility to continue the intergovernmental discussion process to resolve the issue so as to safeguard the authority and effectiveness of the NPT as well as the integrity of the IAEA safeguards system.”

Wang expressed hope that the IAEA board members will focus on core issues of AUKUS at the meeting and seek solutions to safeguard the NPT and the international non-proliferation regime

The Bowls of Wrath are the Result of the Russian War: Revelation 16

Russia, Ukraine and nuclear weapons

Russia, Ukraine and nuclear weapons



© Hill Illustration, Madeline Monroe/AP, Andrew Harnik/Getty

A few days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as North American and European leaders met at the annual Munich Security Conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin sat in a control room with President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, personally overseeing a test launch of nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles.

The message was clear. To Russia, Ukraine is part of a larger, Cold War-style, super-power confrontation, where Russia claims “interests” far beyond its borders and can decide to take military action and even make nuclear threats to assert them. Russia demonstrated this by its demands to NATO in December, and now, by its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in direct violation of international law.

Ukraine will not be the only hotspot in this new Cold War, which raises nuclear tensions and increases the risk of escalation and/or miscalculation touching off nuclear war. Neither side wants that. What steps can we take to lower nuclear risks now?

Putin wants to restore the Soviet empire in Europe and Eurasia and drive the United States out of Europe. And he has a partner in China, which supports Russia on Ukraine and whose trade with Russia can offset economic damage from Western sanctions. Russia supports China on Taiwan. The recent Sino-Russian pact has aptly been described as the beginning of Cold War Two. After Ukraine, Russia may set its sights on other parts of the former Soviet bloc.

We can’t allow aggression with impunity — but if Russia and China return to Cold War-type geopolitics, we also can’t risk a return to Cold War nuclear politics.

The first Cold War came perilously close to nuclear exchange on at least 13 occasions. Several times, only sheer good luck prevented a holocaust. Reagan wrote in his diary after a harrowing near miss in 1983, “Six minutes to decide how to respond to a blip on a radar scope and decide whether to unleash Armageddon! How could anyone apply reason at a time like that?”

Russian aggression against Ukraine must be reversed through legal and political mechanisms provided in the UN Charter. Russia and China have veto power in the UN Security Council, but they have no power to stop the UN General Assembly from acting. Whatever we do, the threat of nuclear war must be kept off the table. We must reduce the risk of the Ukraine conflict — or any other conflict involving nuclear armed states — going nuclear.

President Biden and Putin invoked Reagan and Gorbachev when they stated in June 2021 that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” They reiterated that pledge on Jan. 3, 2022 in a joint statement with China, France, and the UK.

Yet they maintain policies and practices that signal willingness to use nuclear weapons. In recent days, Russia conducted massive drills of its strategic nuclear forces. The Biden administration will soon release its Nuclear Posture Review, which is expected to double down on funding for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including a major program to build a new intercontinental ballistic missile.

Both sides envision the possibility of a pre-emptive or first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict. Some of their nuclear weapons are kept in readiness to be launched within minutes. The U.S. and Russia terminated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty in 2019, removing important assurances concerning non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe. In addition to sanctions, Washington has mentioned “enhanced deterrence” measures. Could they include forward deployment of nuclear weapons? Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany floated the idea that if it isn’t allowed to join NATO, it might need to consider re-nuclearizing. 

For its part, in the run-up to the invasion, Russia indicated it might reserve the option of deploying nuclear weapons closer to the U.S. Putin’s Feb. 24 speech pointed out Russia is still “one of the most powerful nuclear powers,” and threatened any outsiders who would interfere with “consequences greater than any you have faced in history.” On Feb. 28, Russia put its nuclear forces on heightened alert.

Such signals compound nuclear dangers, which were already elevated before the Ukraine crisis. In January the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists announced that its Doomsday Clock would stay set at 100 seconds to midnight for the third year in a row — closer to midnight than ever in its history.

It would send a much more constructive signal if nuclear weapons states refrained from making nuclear threats, and if the U.S. and Russian governments announced they each have their own no-first-use policies (i.e., that they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons). This wouldn’t eliminate nuclear risks overnight, but it would help restore some confidence in the NPT and the arms control regime. 

A recent open letter, endorsed by over 1,100 signatories from 69 countries including Nobel laureates and former government ministers, urged nuclear weapons states to fulfill their NPT commitments and phase out nuclear weapons’ role in security, starting with no-first-use policies. “First-use options are literally playing with fire in very combustible situations,” they warned. No-first-use policies could defuse these risks and help keep alive the NPT goal of eliminating nuclear arsenals.

If that sounds naive at this tense moment in history, consider the alternative. And consider what four of the most experienced and tough-minded U.S. officials — former national security advisor McGeorge Bundy, former ambassador to the Soviet Union George Kennan, former secretary of defense Robert McNamara, and Gerard Smith, negotiator of the first Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty — said in a similarly tense moment: “Any use of nuclear weapons in Europe, by the alliance or against it, carries with it a high and inescapable risk of escalation into general nuclear war which would bring ruin to all and victory to none,” they wrote in 1982. “So, it seems timely to consider the possibilities, the requirements, the difficulties, and the advantages of a policy of no-first-use.”

Ambassador (ret.) Thomas Graham is a former senior U.S. diplomat who was involved in the negotiation of every single international arms control and nonproliferation agreement from 1970 to 1997.

General (ret.) Bernard Norlain is the former Air Defense Commander and Air Combat Commander of the French Air Force and the president of Initiatives for Nuclear Disarmament (IDN).

The Chinese Nuclear Threat: Daniel

Terrorism, Nuclear Weapons, China Viewed as Top U.S. Threats

March 7, 2022

by Jeffrey M. Jones

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans generally regard terrorism, the development of nuclear weapons by unfriendly countries, and China’s military power as the most critical threats to U.S. vital interests.

Specifically, 82% of U.S. adults identify cyberterrorism as a critical threat, while 71% say the same about international terrorism and 68% about domestic terrorism. More than three-quarters each believe Iran’s and North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons is a serious threat to the U.S. Two-thirds say the same about Chinese military power, while 57% identify China’s economic power as a threat.

At the time of the survey, conducted in the weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine, 59% of U.S. adults regarded Russia’s military power, and 52% said the Russia-Ukraine situation, represented critical threats to the U.S. As Gallup has previously reported, both measures are higher than they were in prior years.

Americans’ Views of Critical Threats to U.S. Vital Interests

The Feb. 1-17 Gallup poll also found that majorities of U.S. adults perceive the spread of infectious diseases throughout the world and global warming or climate change as critical threats.

China, Cyberterrorism Seen as Greater Threats Than in Past

Gallup first asked about critical threats to U.S. vital interests in 2004 and has repeated the question in most years since 2010.

Terrorism and nuclear weapons have typically been the greatest concerns. However, in recent years there has been slightly diminished concern about international terrorism and greater concern about cyberterrorism. Gallup asked about domestic terrorism for the first time this year.

Americans have also come to see China as a greater threat, both economically and militarily, than in the past. The 67% who currently view China’s military power as a critical threat is the highest in Gallup’s trend, 16 percentage points above the prior high from 2013 and 26 points higher than the previous measure, in 2016.

Gallup first asked about China’s economic power in 2013, and 52% said it was a critical threat that year and in 2014. Between 2015 and 2019, Americans’ opinions of the threat posed by China’s economy eased, to between 40% and 46%, perhaps because Americans were more positive about the U.S. economy. However, last year the percentage viewing China’s economy as a critical threat surged to 63%, before falling slightly this year, to 57%.

The increases in the perceived threat of China have come as Americans now view China as the United States’ greatest enemy, an opinion held by 49% of respondents in the latest poll and 45% in last year’s poll. Russia is second at 32% in the 2022 poll and was 26% in the 2021 poll. It is unclear how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may have changed Americans’ opinions on which country is the top U.S. enemy.

In addition to shifts in the perceived threat of terrorism and China, other notable changes in Americans’ views of international situations include:

  • Fewer Americans now (64%) than in 2021 (72%) say the spread of infectious diseases is a critical threat to the U.S., as COVID-19 infections and deaths have declined. The percentage saying infectious diseases are a critical threat essentially matches that of the last pre-pandemic measure, in 2016 (63%).
  • Concern about global warming has edged up slightly, from 50% in 2016 to 55% now.
  • Americans are far less likely to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a critical U.S. threat now (35%) than in 2004, when 58% did.

Party Gaps Largest on Global Warming, Immigration

Republicans’ and Democrats’ perceptions of critical threats differ by double-digit margins on about half of the issues measured in the survey. The largest of these is for global warming, which 83% of Democrats versus 19% of Republicans regard as a critical threat to U.S. vital interests. The next-largest party gap is on illegal immigration, something 82% of Republicans and 25% of Democrats view as a major threat.

Democrats are also significantly more likely than Republicans to see the spread of infectious diseases as a critical threat. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to believe the economic power of China, Iranian nuclear weapons, the military power of China and international terrorism are threats.

Independents’ opinions are closer to those of Republicans on the spread of infectious diseases, while independents align more closely with Democrats on illegal immigration, China’s economic and military power, Iranian nuclear weapons, and international terrorism.

Bottom Line

Among key international challenges facing the U.S., terrorism and nuclear weapons have typically stirred the most concern in Americans. Other international matters have become greater or lesser concerns, depending on how the situations are evolving. This year, as Russia was building up forces outside Ukraine’s borders but before it invaded the country, more Americans than in past years saw Russia’s military power and the Russia-Ukraine situation as a threat to the U.S. In recent years, as tensions between China and the U.S. have grown over trade and other matters, more Americans have also come to see China as both a critical economic and military threat to the U.S.


Iran helps Hamas in the war outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett at a recent press conference. Israeli military officials said they used F-35 jet fighters to shoot down two drones launched from Iran in March last year.Photo: gil cohen-magen/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Israel Says Iran Tried to Fly Arms to Hamas Using Drones

Israel says it shot down long-range drones launched from Iran last year as the U.S. and its allies close in on reviving Iranian nuclear deal

March 7, 2022 2:43 pm ET

Israel accused Iran of trying to use long-range drones to fly small arms to Palestinian militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in an evolution in Tehran’s use of unmanned vehicles against its Middle East rival.

Israeli military officials said they used F-35 jet fighters to shoot down two drones launched from Iran in March last year, marking the first time the advanced planes have been used to bring down unmanned vehicles. On Monday, nearly a year after the incident, the Israeli military released video from the F-35s showing

We Are On The Brink Of Nuclear War: Revelation 16

RT editor-in-chief on Tuesday Maria Baronova resigned after publicly condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (Photo by Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images)

Maria Baronova fears ‘we’re on the brink of a nuclear war’ after quitting Russian state-run media over Ukraine

‘I wouldn’t lose my salary and job if I was sure that we are going to be alive for many years,’ Baronova told Fox News Digital

March 7, 2022 1:07pm EST

EXCLUSIVE – Maria Baronova resigned as editor-in-chief of Russia Today, a state-run media operation also known as RT, last week after condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. She’s well aware that anyone who speaks out against the Kremlin could be in danger – but personal safety is the least of Baronova’s concerns.

“The problem is, I know these people very well. They never send threats, they just kill, so there is kind of [a] weird silence around me, but I really think we’re on the brink of a nuclear war right now. I’m not exaggerating,” Baronova told Fox News Digital from Moscow, via a WhatsApp call. 

“I have a son, I can’t leave because his father won’t allow me to leave with him, and so I just prefer to stay in Moscow … It seems like we’re either in North Korea or we are going to be killed by a thermonuclear mushroom,” she said. “I wouldn’t quit, and I wouldn’t lose my salary and job if I was sure that we are going to be alive for many years, but I really don’t know what is going to happen to all of us next.”  

While many around the globe are gravely concerned Putin would resort to nuclear weapons, Baronova is worried his behavior will make Russia the target of a catastrophic attack. 

“I suspect the Western world will use it,” Baronova said. “This is a very dangerous situation.” 

The blunt Baronova agreed to talk to Fox News Digital until her son’s food was ready. She explained that the last straw before quitting RT wasn’t any sort of on-air propaganda, but rather an Instagram message from her colleague who wrote, “If you are now ashamed of being Russian, don’t worry, you are not Russian,” as Putin’s invasion of Ukraine intensified. 

“I was really disturbed by that tone and level of support,” Baronova said, noting that she publicly responded to her now-former coworker’s message.

“If I chose to be with Russia, this does not mean that I should walk in a totalitarian system, be silent or, for example, rejoice that the regime, which I do not want for my country, is being exported somewhere else,” Baronova wrote. “And this regime will finally turn our life into one endless hell. What’s there. Already turned.”

Baronova then stepped down from the state-run network. 

“That was the moment I decided, ‘OK, that’s it,’” she said.  

Baronova said she hasn’t garnered much support from fellow Russians since leaving RT and is seen as an opposition activist. But this isn’t the first time Baronova found herself in the public eye for opposing Putin’s regime. 

She was featured in a 2012 New York Times piece headlined, “A Face of the Russian Protest Movement,” that detailed the time she was charged with inciting a riot while protesting Putin winning a third term. In 2014, Rolling Stone said she was “for a short while, one of the most visible protesters in Moscow,” in a piece that detailed anti-Putin activism led by the punk band Pussy Riot.

Her life was upended after the arrest and she eventually went to work for Dozhd, Russia’s top independent TV channel which is also known as TV Rain and famously critical of Putin. 

Baronova, who was by then a single mother, jumped ship to RT in 2019, irking fellow Putin oppositionists who felt she was abandoning the movement by joining state-run media. 

“People felt betrayed when I decided to join RT,” she said. “But I decided on purpose in order to have a reasonable conversation with people who are in power right now in Russia.”

Last week, Russian authorities accused TV Rain of peddling “false information regarding the actions of Russian military personnel as part of a special operation” in Ukrainec, and Baronova’s prior network was promptly forced off the air as Putin purged non-state media.

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke to female flight attendants in comments  broadcast on state television on Saturday, March 5, 2022. (Image: Reuters Video)(Reuters Video)

Baronova’s two previous employers have suffered different fates over the past few days, as RT remains on air and has echoed Putin’s message throughout the Ukraine invasion. 

Baronova, who was the managing editor of RT’s Russian language unit, said she wanted to bring positivity to the state-run outlet and much of her responsibilities focused on covering problems with social institutions. Baronova said she also spent much of her time at RT working on a fundraiser for mothers of children with cerebral palsy, and she was largely kept out of conversations regarding which Kremlin talking points would be spouted by the outlet despite her editor-in-chief title.

Roughly three years after joining the state-run news organization with hopes of forcing change, the activist-turned-journalist had seen enough after Putin’s ruthless attack on Ukraine that was supported by many of her now-former RT colleagues. 

“I have nothing else to talk about with them,” she said. “Our own government is bombing our relatives, our friends.”

Baronova feels many Russians are “brainwashed” and some even buy Putin’s claim that the attack was needed to help “denazify” Ukraine, which the Kremlin has insisted was the true aggressor. Putin has claimed he wants to purge Ukraine of fascism; such messages, experts have told Fox News Digital, are appealing in Russia since loathing for the defeated Nazi Germany regime runs deep.

“I try to talk with people on the streets… they even had arguments like, ‘We are fighting with Hitler,’ but look, I’ve got some news. Hitler died 80 years ago,” she said. “It seems like they’re really brainwashed.”

Putin has cracked down on non-state news since the invasion of Ukraine began, with social media platforms and independent news operations forced to shut down for refusing to parrot propaganda. Some locals don’t mind that Putin has silenced non-state media and a Moscow taxi driver even told Baronova the now-shuttered TV Rain was filled with “traitors” who opposed the Kremlin.  

“A lot of people have these kind of sentiments,” she said. 

Despite Putin’s attempt to control messaging related to the Ukraine invasion, Baronova is baffled that people still buy into his narrative when accurate information can be found by anyone eager to find it. 

“We have internet like everybody else in this world, and you can’t hide information from people in the era of the internet, so I don’t understand how they can be brainwashed. How can they be saying that Russia is fighting with Hitler collaborators in Ukraine when Hitler died 80 years ago? But they really have these kinds of conversations,” Baronova said, noting that some Russians have begun to open their eyes because of sanctions and American companies pulling out of the nation. 

“People were in favor on [the] first day of invasion. Now they are less convinced and much more skeptical because they understand now that they are going to lose their jobs, they are going to lose their cars, their iPhones, their everything,” she said. “So, let’s see what that are going to say in a month … The whole world is in a bad position.”

Painting a bleak picture, Baronova said it feels like 1945, the final year of World War II before quickly correcting herself.

“Probably more like 1939,” she said, referring to the year that World War II began. “It is really pointless to predict anything … We are watching a lie on my TV.” 

Suddenly, Baronova had to go, as her son’s meal was ready – she told him to please put down his phone and eat. Before hanging up, she had one final message for Americans.  

“Russians love their children, too,” she said. “Stay safe. Everybody, stay safe.” 

Fox News’ David Rutz contributed to this report.